First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad
Decision Date | 23 May 1984 |
Docket Number | Nos. 10573,s. 10573 |
Citation | 350 N.W.2d 580 |
Parties | FIRST BANK OF BUFFALO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kent CONRAD, North Dakota Tax Commissioner, Defendant and Appellee. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, HETTINGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kent CONRAD, North Dakota Tax Commissioner, Defendant and Appellee. DAKOTA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kent CONRAD, North Dakota Tax Commissioner, Defendant and Appellee. Civ.to 10575. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Lamb, Schaefer, McNair & Larson, Fargo, for First State Bank of Buffalo, First Nat. Bank, Hettinger, and Dakota Bank and Trust Co., plaintiffs and appellants; argued by Gregory L. Thompson, Fargo.
Albert R. Hausauer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for defendant and appellee.
The First State Bank of Buffalo, the First National Bank of Hettinger, and the Dakota Bank and Trust Company [the banks], on or before 16 March 1983 filed separate claims for tax refunds with the Tax Commissioner for the taxes paid pursuant to North Dakota Century Code Chapters 57-35 and 57-35.2. The claims for refund were predicated on the assumption that Ch. 57-35 and Ch. 57-35.2 violated 31 U.S.C. Sec. 742 (now 31 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3124). The Tax Commissioner, by letter dated 3 May 1983, denied each claim for refund. The banks, on 3 June 1983, appealed to the district court which upheld the denial. The Tax Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, to remand the matter to the Tax Commissioner for a hearing to develop a record. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The banks then appealed to this Court.
The banks, relying upon Memphis Bank and Trust Company v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392, 103 S.Ct. 692, 74 L.Ed.2d 562 (1983), contended that the North Dakota tax discriminatorily exempted income from bonds for projects under Sec. 40-57-03(4) but did not exempt similar federal projects and as such the North Dakota Act was invalid.
In Memphis 1 the court considered a Tennessee statute that imposed a tax on the net earnings of banks doing business within the state, and defined net earnings to include income from obligations of the United States and its instrumentalities but excluded interest earned on the obligations of Tennessee and its political subdivisions. The court found that the tax imposed by Tennessee could not be characterized as nondiscriminatory under the exception for nondiscriminatory franchise taxes as provided for in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 742.
31 U.S.C. Sec. 742 [now U.S.C.A. Sec. 3124] provided as follows:
[Emphasis ours.]
The privilege tax paid by the banks was based upon the net income of the institution subject to the tax.
The statutes in question in the instant case are as follows:
57-35-04. [Underlined language was added in 1979 by Ch. 596 and was removed in 1983 by Ch. 619.]
57-35.2-02. [Underlined language was added in 1979 by Ch. 596, and was removed in 1983 by Ch. 619.]
Chapter 57-35, NDCC, does not contain a procedure to be followed in making ordinary refunds but contains a provision on overpayments. Section 57-35-12, regarding overpayments, in part provides:
"If said bank or trust company shall be found to have overpaid said tax and entitled to a refund, it may deduct the amount of such refund from such tax as may be payable by it for the next succeeding calendar year."
The only provision for refund in Ch. 57-35.2 is found in Sec. 57-35.2-05 which, in part, states:
"If such bank, trust company, or building and loan association is found to have overpaid its tax and to be entitled to a refund, such refund shall be made by the commissioner from the general fund of the state treasury."
Significantly, this only applies to instances where the bank or trust company has overpaid its tax.
Under NDCC Sec. 57-35.2-04, the tax commissioner deposits the taxes paid into the state general fund. These funds, pursuant to Sec. 57-58-01, are certified by the tax commissioner to the state treasurer for payment to the respective county treasurers, who, in turn, allocate and remit to the counties, cities, park boards, school districts, airport authorities, townships, and all other units of government having the authority to levy taxes, that amount of revenue which is received from the state in the same ratio as he would have distributed the revenues from the personal property tax. The county treasurer must adjust those amounts by an increase or decrease in the real property taxes as levied by each taxing authority, according to the formula provided in NDCC Ch. 57-58.
An analysis of NDCC Sec. 57-58-01 clearly discloses that the state is merely a funnel through which these taxes passed. The tax ultimately went to the various taxing authorities. Section 57-58-01 also provides that the state tax commissioner shall determine the amount due based upon personal property taxes levied for the North Dakota state medical center. The amount of taxes certified is to be computed in accordance with the formula provided for computing the amounts to be certified and paid to the counties. The state treasurer, upon receiving the certification from the tax commissioner, must transfer from the general fund to the credit of the North Dakota state medical center, the amount certified.
To our knowledge, the only real estate tax that went to the state was pursuant to Article X, Sec. 10 of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides for a one mill levy upon all taxable property to be put in the state treasury and credited to the North Dakota state medical center at the University of North Dakota.
These provisions clearly illustrate that the state does not retain any of the funds. If anything at all, the state incurred the expenses for administering the program. Thus, while the state temporarily may have been the custodian of these funds, it is not the custodian in the sense that it retained the funds for state use.
The record and statutes do not disclose that the Legislature appropriated any funds from which refunds could be made. The statutory provisions regarding overpayment are not designed to cover applications for refunds such as we have here.
In this respect we believe that the rationale expressed in Stark County v. State, 160 N.W.2d 101 (N.D.1968), is applicable. In Stark County this Court rejected a claim by the county that it was entitled to additional money from the Motor Vehicle Registration Fund because of an alleged improper method of distribution. The Court noted there was no showing that the State had used or retained any part of the moneys which it sought to recover. The Court concluded:
Similarly, in the present case, the State did not retain any of the funds nor were the funds received for the benefit of the State itself. Rather, the State acted merely as custodian of the funds for purposes of distribution.
The Memphis decision by the United States Supreme Court does not automatically make the North Dakota statute unconstitutional as it existed prior to the deletions by the 1983 legislature. For that matter, the banks have not demonstrated or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry
... ... As a result, the Chancery Court's resolution of those issues in the first Chancery Court proceeding from which Richardson did not appeal, bars ... no authority to consider constitutionality of legislation); First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad, 350 N.W.2d 580, 585 (N.D.1984) (agency must presume ... ...
-
Quill Corporation v. North Dakota Heitkamp
... ... It concerns the first part of the Complete Auto test and stands for the proposition that a ... North Dakota appears to follow the same principle. See First Bank ... See First Bank of Buffalo ... See First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad ... ...
-
Alleghany Corp. v. Pomeroy
... ... The court based this decision primarily on its analysis of First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad, 350 N.W.2d 580 (N.D.1984), in which the North ... ...
-
Ass'n of Equip. Mfrs. v. Burgum, Case No. 1:17-cv-151
... ... , or sell a dealer agreement to another person unless the dealer first provides written notice to the manufacturer or distributor of the intended ... Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. , 527 U.S. 666, 673, 119 ... dependent on others which are unconstitutional"); First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad , 350 N.W.2d 580, 584 (N.D. 1984) ("The declaration of part of a ... ...